June 22, 2007

Imagine if George Bush uttered the following about NBC, CBS, et. al.

"We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far leftwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this."

Think the Left in this country would have a paroxysm of anger? Think the MSM would rise up in indignation? Damn right they would! And they'd be right.

The thing is, replace "leftwing" in the above quote with "rightwing," and change the target from NBC etc. to talk radio. The quote is actually from a discussion between Hillary Clinton and CA's Barbara Boxeraccording to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe (R), who overheard the two on an elevator.

Um, dan? Two things: 1)Why the phony name, and 2) Do you deny that some liberals are attempting to legislatively hinder talk radio a la things like revival of the Fairness Doctrine? Which makes Inhofe's claim meritorious.

One way to find out: Ask Clinton or Boxer if they said it. Think we'll get a straight answer?

Actually, Hube, that is my colleague, who has popped in now and again over the last couple years. I'd have no reason to use a fake name here.

My view? Might very well be true, or might be a lie -- it's something easily made up, because, as you say, it's based on something current. What the heck do I know? Personally, I think we've now reached a new low with hearsay as news, regardless of party affiliation!

I believe colleague's point was that the righty blogosphere would have an absolute field day laughing an "overheard on an elevator" story right outta town. In the current environment, it's not about whether something may be true, it's about the person speaking. There's no thought, no analysis... no fairness. Just ideology: "Does it advance our agenda?" If Hillary overheard something that might well be true on an elevator, it'd be instantly branded a lie, no matter how believable or "current" the issue is. But the guy who compared global warming to Hitler's "big lie" has the right letter next to his name, so he gets a pass.

Oh, it's not just that it's several years old. It's that Inhofe said it was "the other day" on Thursday -- then suddenly yesterday on Cavuto, it was "something he'd told 100 times over the last few years."

So now Rhymes With Right proceeds to set up a straw man, then attack. Typical!!!

Wouldn't it be a welcomed change for the Right to worry about the secrecy in the WH, to worry about their behaving outside the law. Don't you folks favor open government? Don't you folks revere the rule of law? These are not straw men, these are Chaney and Bush and their WH cohorts I'm talking about here:
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/06/22/cq_2938.html

What'd be a welcome change, Perry, is for you to get your own damn blog to piss out all your bulls**t. Have you found another "underdog" to root for today? Hey -- did you catch "Dogfights" last night on the History Channel? It was all about how the Israeli airforce tore apart the Egyptians and Syrians in various air battles. If you saw it, I bet you were either crying in despair or throwing things at the tube in anger, right?

RWR is right on: With few exceptions, the Left by and large feels threatened by talk radio and would love to do "something" about it. Even though the Inhofe story was wildly inflated, it seems.

Yeah -- attempts to revive the fairness doctrine, this week's "independent report" (by a Clintonista-controlled organization), talk of a "vast right wing conspiracy" -- its all a strawman, isn't it, Perry.

So tell me -- is it or is it not the case that the bulk of the Left today wishes to "do something" about the conservative strangle-hold on talk radio?

And Perry, I really have to agree with Hube -- if you want to comment on that article, why don't you see wander over to Blogger and get yourself your own free blog, where we can come and pepper you with irrelevant comments and accuse you of intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice because you don't want to talk about the topics that we want you to?

Earth-to-Perry: They wanted to stop federal funds, yes, which only amount to some 25% of PBS's total funding if memory serves. It wouldn't have resulted in PBS going off the air, but even so -- don't you see a difference between a publicly funded outfit's obligation of balance vs. that of a private organization?

"Setting aside the questions about the incident itself -- does anyone really wish to contend that this is not the position Clinton, Boxer, and the bulk of the "American" Left today." -- Rhymes with Right

Where's the legislation? Have you seen any yet, RWR. When you do, then I'll accept your point.

Whatever the cut of funding to CPB was, I recall it being a concern whether PBS would be able to make up the shortfall, thus seriously reducing their programming.

I understand that even balanced programming would appear unbalanced to a political extremist on either side. I think PBS, with a couple of minor exceptions, is quite reasonably balanced.

"What'd be a welcome change, Perry, is for you to get your own damn blog to piss out all your bulls**t. Have you found another "underdog" to root for today? Hey -- did you catch "Dogfights" last night on the History Channel? It was all about how the Israeli airforce tore apart the Egyptians and Syrians in various air battles. If you saw it, I bet you were either crying in despair or throwing things at the tube in anger, right?" -- Hube

I understand well, Hube, that any position I take, not in agreement with yours, is by your definition bulls**t. You very effectively demonstrate your intolerance. Why you have a blog, then insult and attempt to shut down a participant? I don't understand!

I will admit that the classical "underdog" attracts my attention, because I suspect there may be an understandable history behind their plight. In your world, might makes right. Not mine!

Obviously, in the case of the plight of the Palestinians, there is another side that the pro-Israeli side would rather not have discussed, which is why you wish for me to shut up.

My wish is for Middle East peace. War and violence will not produce it -- I think that is an obvious fact with which most reasonable people would agree. Rather, war and violence play directly into the hands of the extremists on both sides, don't/won't you agree?

So if calling for reasonable steps to be taken, such as having regular discourse/mettings with your adversary, labels me as "rooting for the underdog" in the eyes of extremists, so be it.

No, I was out last evening, so did not catch "Dogfights". If you recommend it, I'll look for it the next time it shows.

Not so much FoxNews for the News, RWR, but most of their opediots are beyond the pale propagandists in the Limbaughsian model, and pretty damn nasty personalities as well. You know well about whom I speak, don't you, you know, the upside down rubber duckies!

Yes, propaganda is scary, because of how many folks, at least 30% of us, swallow it whole without chewing!!!

Why you have a blog, then insult and attempt to shut down a participant? I don't understand!

We enable comments for a reasonable discussion, Perry. When there's an obvious impasse reached -- a la the mid-east situation between me and you -- you make yourself into a troll in comments by posting the same stuff over and over which will convince me NOT ONE BIT. Again, if you wish to post your own views on a particular topic, GET YOUR OWN BLOG. It's free, for cripe's sake. If you continue as you have -- your aforementioned "promise" to "counter" me in every pro-Israel post I make -- you'll be in for a surprise ... namely you WON'T be able to comment.

And don't play the "high and mighty" game where you're just "interested in peace" and I'm such an "extremist." That's all so much bulls***. All that translates to is you have a different opinion than mine. Which, as it so happens, also happens to be dead wrong.

"You know, Perry, it must be hard to live your life so full of hate." ==> Rymes With Right

And just what is it that I and a majority of Americans hate, RWR?

I know that you radicals would love to believe your statement, as it is a common response from the radical right to anyone with whom you disagree and have not a credible reasoned response. I was using hyperbole, and you know it!

I will, however, tell you what I do hate, and those are the THINGS that Cheney (Read the current WaPo series) and Bush have done, (and you unquestioning ideological supporters condone,) to the integrity and reputation of our beloved nation, like: abandonment of the rule of law; the lies and deceit that took us to war against Iraq; the incompetence in the post-invasion strategies and tactics; the tyranny of secrecy and vindictiveness surrounding the operation of the e
Executive Branch; the Machiavellian approach to governance; the politics of division; need I name more?

The polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of the American people now recognize these cavernous shortfalls from the fundamental expectations of most Americans, yet you and yours, the ~30%, persist in your state of denial. When will you open your eyes to the essences of what is really going on here under the leadership of this Cheney/Bush cabal?

So yes, these things that they have done, those indeed are what I hate, RWR!!!

Gee, Perry, I'm certainly no unquestioning of this administration. I think that W. is dead wrong on immigration, and his big love-fest with Teddy the Swimmer on the issue.

I opposed Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. And I think the biggest problem with our Iraq strategy is that w haven't sent enough troops or given them a free enough hand to wipe out the terrorists.

And I may be a part of the ~30%, but at least I'm not part of the 14% that supports the Democrat Congress.

Perry follows the usual Western media in blaming the US, EU and Israel for the Palestinian civil war. Ironically, it's the Arab media that puts the blame -- rightly -- on the Palestinians themselves. Here's the latest:

From a paper in Lebanon: "[The Palestinians] have nearly lost their homeland, and the only ones to blame are those who wielded weapons in order to wrench it from the enemy, but have lost their way. The fedayeen have become the murderers of their own comrades-in-arms..."

From Saudi Arabia, "By means of Hamas's takeover in Gaza, the Iran-Syria axis has managed to destroy the Mecca agreement, to sabotage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and to block the role of Saudi Arabia, which had become the regional authority [handling] the hotspots in the [Middle East], namely Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine."

And from Egypt: "What is happening in Gaza, and the emergence of the Hamas's Islamic emirate there, can only be described as an earthquake, and not only for the Palestinians... The impact of this Islamic emirate on our Arab world will not be like that [caused by] the emergence of the Taliban Emirate, [for] it is more dangerous, to the point where it will [threaten] Arab security."

"No, I was out last evening, so did not catch "Dogfights". If you recommend it, I'll look for it the next time it shows."

It's totally cool. There was an episode on a month or so ago about "Duke" Cunningham - apparently they'd produced it before the ethics scandal, but ran it anyway. Is the History channel part of the mighty Fox Empire? Anyway, Cunningham was the first fighter ace of the Vietnam, and went on to become an instructor at Top Gun. Yep, he turned into a scumbag legislator in the end, but he was an actual war hero, unlike glory hound John Kerry. Compare and contrast: when Cunningham returned from his tour, he did his best to teach young pilots how to stay alive, while Kerry went to work slamming his fellow servicemen as war criminals, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

RWR, I've been mostly skimming over the comments, but I feel like I should clear up something... I wouldn't go so far as to say the bulk of the left wants to put some sort of legal stranglehold on conservative talk radio/conservative media in general. I have a somewhat laissez-faire (improper use of the term, I know) approach to this, and I think that Hube will agree with me when I say that I am on the FAR left. Do I wish there were less conservatives on the radio? More appropriately, less blowhards like Limbaugh, but that's just my personal opinion of Rush. I wouldn't want any legal regulation of his program other than making sure he's not being slanderous. I'd like to see (hear) more liberals on talk radio, but that's not a move to be made in the courts.